Illinois one step away from calling for US Constitutional Convention

By Jes Greene and Jackson AdamsIllinois News Network

Wednesday

May 21, 2014 at 11:48 AMMay 21, 2014 at 11:48 AM

SPRINGFIELD — A Harvard University law professor, who advocates restricting campaign contributions, gave testimony Tuesday, before an Illinois House committee, on whether the state should call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Dr. Lawrence Lessig appeared on behalf of SJR 42, a resolution calling for the state to apply to “Congress for the calling of a convention for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.”

The U.S. Constitution specifies in Article V that states must use one of two ways to propose amendments. One way is for two-thirds of the state legislatures to call for a convention. To date, the only constitutional convention was the first one in 1787.

Lessig’s proposed amendment to the Constitution would limit the amount of money individuals can give to a political campaign, a move that some think may overturn the decision reached by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.

“My ideal amendment is one that secures Congress the power to guarantee free and fair elections by making sure that we don’t have a Congress that’s dependent on raising millions,” Lessig told the committee. “There are two things that have to change: the way we fund elections and the ability to eliminate entities like Super PACs from dominating the political arena.”

The resolution passed the Illinois Senate, 37-15, and passed the House Judiciary Committee, 9-7.

A three-fifths majority in the House is required for it to pass.

Legislators on the committee wondered how a convention would impact the status quo.

“So how would that overcome the Citizens United ruling in regards to the First Amendment?” asked state Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-Northbrook. “Wouldn’t this just be competing then with the First Amendment?”

“I think an amendment to the Constitution should clarify that Congress has the power to limit contributions to political action committees,” Lessig replied. He added that the convention would, with due deliberation, have a chance to discuss the issue better.

But other legal scholars believe this would be bad public policy.

“I think it’s a very bad idea,” said John McGinnis, professor of constitutional law at Northwestern University. “I think we should have more speech at the time of elections. This seems to me to make the United States system a less participatory system. I know Larry Lessig is very concerned about the influence of the rich. I don’t see that as a danger. Rich people have a lot of different views.”

McGinnis brought up what he thought was more dangerous.

“I see this as an attempt by people like Professor Lessig and what I call the ‘new class,’ the media and academics, to restrict people who don’t have opinions for a living from participating,” he said. “If you look at the media and academics, they look a lot less diverse in their ideological views than rich people. Rich people are pretty divided between Republicans and Democrats.”

Lessig was clear that he thought money corrupted Democrats as much as Republicans, and he added that he thought many on both sides of the aisle supported some kind of reform.

“There’s many Tea Party groups who are absolutely committed to ending the problems of crony capitalism that make it impossible for our government to do the things that the government should do,” he said. “This is the point, people on the left and the right can recognize that they don’t care about the same things and are not trying to achieve the same objectives, but the same thing is blocking them and that is this corrupt system.”

The “no” votes in the Judiciary Committee included both Republicans and Democrats.

“There are a lot of unknowns here,” said state Rep. Scott Drury, D-Highwood. “This showed up on my desk Friday of last week to propose this — and it just seems that this is going really quickly for a really big deal. I’ve had bills that did a lot less that get held up. Let’s be clear about what we’re talking about. We’re talking about an untested constitutional provision that has been in effect for over 200 years that no one has ever used and I just think that we’d be better off as a committee not rushing to decision over this.”

“Obviously there is some concern that this would create mayhem,” said state Rep. Ron Sandack, R-Downers Grove. “Congress is going to do whatever they’re going to do.”

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.